|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
Alternative idea .... There is in Australia today a well resourced well led and Football knowledgeable body with over 100 million dollars in assets that could replace FFA tomorrow and it is already FIFA accepted. The NSW Football Federation could become the head body with the Northern NSW Federation taking over the parts of NSW that are controlled by the NSW Federation. Think i am kidding Have a look at Valentine Park and look at what they have link .. http://valentinesportspark.com.auThen look at the youtube FIFA could as I understand it NSWFC as the head body .. . http://valentinesportspark.com.au/
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged. Well they have to negotiate with Vic or NSW, but once FIFA gets involved we might have to add another 50 voters to a new congress. Edit - Would it stand to reason that all those NPL clubs in NSW and Victoria fall under those two associations who are not voting the way the FFA want. Even if they did vote in favour of the FFA would FIFA find 12 votes acceptable for a new congress or even 13 for that matter. As I said, the FFA only needs one of Vic or NSW to get its proposal up. In other words, the ten clubs are at the polar extreme of getting anything up. FFA could rightly argue that they are so close to getting their proposal up, needing just the one vote, that they deserve time to lobby the members. Do you think FIFA will allow 12 votes for a new congress. That figure of 12 is the FFA's number they would like, apparently 13 votes is too much for them. Still has to pass FIFA's scrutiny which it wont.
|
|
|
|
|
Midfielder
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it. Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made. The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's. Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk. Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it. My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA. FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table. Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits. As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows.. Pip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . +x+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations. Pip Thats just silly on your part ... I still thinks FIFA are not stepping in tomorrow but FFA can be replaced and quickly and Fox will work with whoever is in charge.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week. Back to basics - the clubs want at least $4 mill per annum, last FFA offer was $3.55 mill per annum. Will FIFA step in merely because the two parties are yet to agree an amount, which is currently not all that far apart? No, next to zero chance. Now if by chance something extreme like that did happen, with new governing body, new league, maybe new clubs - I would bet that Foxtel would be negotiating a lesser TV deal, afterall, it's a brand new comp, new risks, major disruption, why would they want to offer the same amount?
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged. Well they have to negotiate with Vic or NSW, but once FIFA gets involved we might have to add another 50 voters to a new congress. Edit - Would it stand to reason that all those NPL clubs in NSW and Victoria fall under those two associations who are not voting the way the FFA want. Even if they did vote in favour of the FFA would FIFA find 12 votes acceptable for a new congress or even 13 for that matter. As I said, the FFA only needs one of Vic or NSW to get its proposal up. In other words, the ten clubs are at the polar extreme of getting anything up. FFA could rightly argue that they are so close to getting their proposal up, needing just the one vote, that they deserve time to lobby the members. Do you think FIFA will allow 12 votes for a new congress. That figure of 12 is the FFA's number they would like, apparently 13 votes is too much for them. Still has to pass FIFA's scrutiny which it wont. I actually thought the latest proposal had moved beyond 12. Either way, as of today, 7 of 10 members support the FFA.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week. Back to basics - the clubs want at least $4 mill per annum, last FFA offer was $3.55 mill per annum. Will FIFA step in merely because the two parties are yet to agree an amount, which is currently not all that far apart? No, next to zero chance. Now if by chance something extreme like that did happen, with new governing body, new league, maybe new clubs - I would bet that Foxtel would be negotiating a lesser TV deal, afterall, it's a brand new comp, new risks, major disruption, why would they want to offer the same amount? Who said its going to Fox?
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x@ pippinuGuatemala, Indonesia, Kuwait, Argentina, Nigeria, Maldives, Israel all suspended or faced suspension in the recent past. If you understand the history of the A league you'll know how much effort went into avoiding australias suspension when the government set up Crawford. It should be noted that government interference in a national association generally leads to suspension. If the FFA don't like the rules they can resign from FIFA. The clubs, players, referees then have a choice - they can go with the ffa or wait and see if a FIFA compliant organisation emerges? What do you think would happen?? And you like contracts soooo much, all player, referee, sponsorship, tv contracts etc are all written under FIFAs umberella - if the FFA leave the individuals concerned can choose to honour them or null and void them. FIFA is not any rush to fix this, we are neither unique or special, but they will fix it. Gallop is going and Lowe won't be far behind. Nice list Waz, I can really see how a first world country like Australia sits in that company. As I said earlier, remind me again which side the Backries were on when FIFA took action in Indonesia, and tell me how keen they'd be to back the Backries this time round. What about we go back to basics, wasn't FIFA's interest in this matter initially about wanting the FFA to broaden representation to have as many stakeholders represented. The FFA has not been able to achieve it because 3 of the current 10 stakeholders have voted against the most recent proposal put to members, afterall, there are strict processes to abide by to change a constitution. So are you arguing that FIFA is going to throw the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy? What about the other 7 stakeholders? Don't they count? Well obviously there are two issues at play here. The first is the governance of the FFA and the FFA's refusal to increase the congress. Currently the number of congress votes is only 10 and the FFA would love to keep this is as small as possible. For goodness sake they don't even want to increase it to 13 which would still be a figure to low for FIFA. The FFA know that if they increase the congress past 12 that they would be voted out. Looking more and more likely. The other issue is the current clubs are not happy with the dividend from the TV deal which is a separate issue but will ultimately drag the FFA down but also ties into the governance issues currently causing the FFA some headache. Your first para is the main reason why FIFA took an interest, and has things stand, with 7 of 10 stakeholders supporting the FFA, I cannot see FIFA throwing the FFA out because 3 of 10 stakeholders are unhappy. Re the 2nd para, everyone is starting to speculate that that would be enough for FIFA to step in, but that is far removed from the original reason for FIFA getting involved. They are already unhappy. NOT BECAUSE 3 are not happy, but because there should be more than 10 votes. Most congresses around the world number at least 50. The congress in Germany as an example has over 300 votes. Yes, and the FFA Commission put up a proposal to its members to extend membership, and 3 of 10 voted against it. I simply say to you, that is not sufficient reason for FIFA to throw Australia out because the FFA still has the support of 7 of 10 members (but under the consitution, that is not enough to change the constitution). Anyway, the divvying up of the TV rights is far removed from this central issue. The FFA has to follow its own constitution wouldn't you think. Come up with a new proposal, one acceptable to the clubs and the FFA. AS things currently stand, no - the FFA does not have to put something up which is acceptable to the clubs (who only have the one vote), if either of Vic or NSW voted in favour of the proposal, it would get up unchanged. Well they have to negotiate with Vic or NSW, but once FIFA gets involved we might have to add another 50 voters to a new congress. Edit - Would it stand to reason that all those NPL clubs in NSW and Victoria fall under those two associations who are not voting the way the FFA want. Even if they did vote in favour of the FFA would FIFA find 12 votes acceptable for a new congress or even 13 for that matter. As I said, the FFA only needs one of Vic or NSW to get its proposal up. In other words, the ten clubs are at the polar extreme of getting anything up. FFA could rightly argue that they are so close to getting their proposal up, needing just the one vote, that they deserve time to lobby the members. Do you think FIFA will allow 12 votes for a new congress. That figure of 12 is the FFA's number they would like, apparently 13 votes is too much for them. Still has to pass FIFA's scrutiny which it wont. I actually thought the latest proposal had moved beyond 12. Either way, as of today, 7 of 10 members support the FFA. Yes but they need 8 so they can change the constitution and change it from 10 votes to 12 votes, which FIFA wont allow anyway. Just watch.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAlternative idea .... There is in Australia today a well resourced well led and Football knowledgeable body with over 100 million dollars in assets that could replace FFA tomorrow and it is already FIFA accepted. The NSW Football Federation could become the head body with the Northern NSW Federation taking over the parts of NSW that are controlled by the NSW Federation. Think i am kidding Have a look at Valentine Park and look at what they have link .. http://valentinesportspark.com.auThen look at the youtube FIFA could as I understand it NSWFC as the head body .. . http://valentinesportspark.com.au/ Already too Sydney centric. We need a national league run out of Melbourne. Sydney is already "won". There needs to be a seperation away from FFA. An expansion on your idea would be to have a co-run federation (NSW and Vic). These 2 could form a union and invite A-League teams from outside of NSW and Vic control (BR, NJ, AU & PG) to play in their combined league system/league. Further teams from NNSW, Qld, Tas, ACT, SA and WA could be granted permission to join after application. Yes, a Sydney and Melbourne league plus extras. This is a way to success.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it. Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made. The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's. Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk. Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it. My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA. FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table. Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits. As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows.. Pip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . +x+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations. I still thinks FIFA are not stepping in tomorrow but FFA can be replaced and quickly and Fox will work with whoever is in charge. Well we agree on your first point, but I am still amazed that there are so-called football fans on here who honestly believe that having FIFA take such an extreme action is somehow good. Firstly, are you forgetting how it was that the FFA came into existence? Even with government throwing tens of millions of dollars at it, it was anything but quick and easy. Why do people think it will be quick and easy the next time? Why do people think that such major disruption is a good thing? Why do people suppose that everyone will fall into lock-step with whoever FIFA puts forward to run Australian Football. That seems like a mighty big assumption based on nothing.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week. Back to basics - the clubs want at least $4 mill per annum, last FFA offer was $3.55 mill per annum. Will FIFA step in merely because the two parties are yet to agree an amount, which is currently not all that far apart? No, next to zero chance. Now if by chance something extreme like that did happen, with new governing body, new league, maybe new clubs - I would bet that Foxtel would be negotiating a lesser TV deal, afterall, it's a brand new comp, new risks, major disruption, why would they want to offer the same amount? Who said its going to Fox? True, it might go to one of the other bidders who missed out.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAlternative idea .... There is in Australia today a well resourced well led and Football knowledgeable body with over 100 million dollars in assets that could replace FFA tomorrow and it is already FIFA accepted. The NSW Football Federation could become the head body with the Northern NSW Federation taking over the parts of NSW that are controlled by the NSW Federation. Think i am kidding Have a look at Valentine Park and look at what they have link .. http://valentinesportspark.com.auThen look at the youtube FIFA could as I understand it NSWFC as the head body .. . http://valentinesportspark.com.au/ Already too Sydney centric. We need a national league run out of Melbourne. Sydney is already "won". An expansion on your idea would be to have a co-run federation (NSW and Vic). These 2 could form a union and invite A-League teams from outside of NSW and Vic control (BR, NJ, AU & PG) to play in their combined league system/league. Further teams from NNSW, Qld, Tas, ACT, SA and WA could be granted permission to join after application. Yes, a Sydney and Melbourne league plus extras. This is a way to success. It doesn't matter where its run from, run it from Adelaide for all I care. The whole point is that the FFA under Gallop is in trouble and he knows it. Hence the unnecessary delay in changing the constitution and the congress numbers. Its not a difficult task. At the end of the day football will change and Gallop I will be surprised if he survives.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week. Back to basics - the clubs want at least $4 mill per annum, last FFA offer was $3.55 mill per annum. Will FIFA step in merely because the two parties are yet to agree an amount, which is currently not all that far apart? No, next to zero chance. Now if by chance something extreme like that did happen, with new governing body, new league, maybe new clubs - I would bet that Foxtel would be negotiating a lesser TV deal, afterall, it's a brand new comp, new risks, major disruption, why would they want to offer the same amount? Who said its going to Fox? True, it might go to one of the other bidders who missed out. Whoever it is I am signing up and cancelling fox.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAlternative idea .... There is in Australia today a well resourced well led and Football knowledgeable body with over 100 million dollars in assets that could replace FFA tomorrow and it is already FIFA accepted. The NSW Football Federation could become the head body with the Northern NSW Federation taking over the parts of NSW that are controlled by the NSW Federation. Think i am kidding Have a look at Valentine Park and look at what they have link .. http://valentinesportspark.com.auThen look at the youtube FIFA could as I understand it NSWFC as the head body .. . http://valentinesportspark.com.au/ Already too Sydney centric. We need a national league run out of Melbourne. Sydney is already "won". An expansion on your idea would be to have a co-run federation (NSW and Vic). These 2 could form a union and invite A-League teams from outside of NSW and Vic control (BR, NJ, AU & PG) to play in their combined league system/league. Further teams from NNSW, Qld, Tas, ACT, SA and WA could be granted permission to join after application. Yes, a Sydney and Melbourne league plus extras. This is a way to success. It doesn't matter where its run from, run it from Adelaide for all I care. The whole point is that the FFA under Gallop is in trouble and he knows it. Hence the unnecessary delay in changing the constitution and the congress numbers. Its not a difficult task. At the end of the day football will change and Gallop I will be surprised if he survives. Do you mean Lowy and Gallop, or just Gallop?
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xI assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it. Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made. The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's. Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk. Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it. My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA. FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table. Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits. As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows.. Pip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . +x+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations. I still thinks FIFA are not stepping in tomorrow but FFA can be replaced and quickly and Fox will work with whoever is in charge. Well we agree on your first point, but I am still amazed that there are so-called football fans on here who honestly believe that having FIFA take such an extreme action is somehow good. Firstly, are you forgetting how it was that the FFA came into existence? Even with government throwing tens of millions of dollars at it, it was anything but quick and easy. Why do people think it will be quick and easy the next time? Why do people think that such major disruption is a good thing? Why do people suppose that everyone will fall into lock-step with whoever FIFA puts forward to run Australian Football. That seems like a mighty big assumption based on nothing. It is a big deal. I am not sure why the FFA is treating this situation so lightly. All they have to do is have more votes in their congress. Not an unreasonable request.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAlternative idea .... There is in Australia today a well resourced well led and Football knowledgeable body with over 100 million dollars in assets that could replace FFA tomorrow and it is already FIFA accepted. The NSW Football Federation could become the head body with the Northern NSW Federation taking over the parts of NSW that are controlled by the NSW Federation. Think i am kidding Have a look at Valentine Park and look at what they have link .. http://valentinesportspark.com.auThen look at the youtube FIFA could as I understand it NSWFC as the head body .. . http://valentinesportspark.com.au/ Already too Sydney centric. We need a national league run out of Melbourne. Sydney is already "won". An expansion on your idea would be to have a co-run federation (NSW and Vic). These 2 could form a union and invite A-League teams from outside of NSW and Vic control (BR, NJ, AU & PG) to play in their combined league system/league. Further teams from NNSW, Qld, Tas, ACT, SA and WA could be granted permission to join after application. Yes, a Sydney and Melbourne league plus extras. This is a way to success. It doesn't matter where its run from, run it from Adelaide for all I care. The whole point is that the FFA under Gallop is in trouble and he knows it. Hence the unnecessary delay in changing the constitution and the congress numbers. Its not a difficult task. At the end of the day football will change and Gallop I will be surprised if he survives. Do you mean Lowy and Gallop, or just Gallop? Gallop.............Lowy is never there to make a decision.
|
|
|
|
pippinu
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 5.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it. Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made. The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's. Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk. Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it. My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA. FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table. Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits. As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows.. Pip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . +x+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations. I still thinks FIFA are not stepping in tomorrow but FFA can be replaced and quickly and Fox will work with whoever is in charge. Well we agree on your first point, but I am still amazed that there are so-called football fans on here who honestly believe that having FIFA take such an extreme action is somehow good. Firstly, are you forgetting how it was that the FFA came into existence? Even with government throwing tens of millions of dollars at it, it was anything but quick and easy. Why do people think it will be quick and easy the next time? Why do people think that such major disruption is a good thing? Why do people suppose that everyone will fall into lock-step with whoever FIFA puts forward to run Australian Football. That seems like a mighty big assumption based on nothing. It is a big deal. I am not sure why the FFA is treating this situation so lightly. All they have to do is have more votes in their congress. Not an unreasonable request. Well, we both know the answer - Lowy was allowed to do whatever he wanted in setting up the FFA (Government asked him to do it, gave him the funds, Lowy wanted carte blanche and got it). Lowy set up a structure that meant the game would never fall into the hands of those pesky wogs again. He, and his son now, achieve this by having all the smaller state federations in their back pocket. He can go to 13 seats at the table and still control things via the 7 smaller state federations (just). Anything higher than that, and Lowy loses control. So we know and understand why, but the problem remains that he does have those 7 votes in his back pocket, and the disgruntled stakeholders only have 3. That's where things currently stand, and Lowy can rightly argue that he is closer to having the numbers to change the constitution than the other 3 members.
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI assuming at this stage the article is factual or close to it. Assuming this arguably the most stupid mistake ever made by FFA has just been made. The original offer was 3.25 million to 3.55 plus some additional contra's. Under but maybe getting close enough to sit down and talk. Then for the additional funding you have to spend in on what FFA say and run it by them before you spend it. My personal view is FFA wanted it rejected god can only know why but to say you have to spend the extra money effectively where we say and then run it by FFA. FFA IMO would have know that would be rejected... this is beyond stupid... the amount IMO with no conditions would have at least got the parties to the table. Why The F would FFA offer something I am absolutely sure they knew would be rejected ... unless the Lowy want for control knows no limits. As to FIFA stepping in ... tad to early ... but this is going down to the wire ... maybe Lowy had a chat at the Conf Cup with FIFA... who knows.. Pip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . +x+xPip FIFA won't give a toss what the Australian government think . Well, it's certianly true that FIFA love to flex their muscle against 3rd world nations. I still thinks FIFA are not stepping in tomorrow but FFA can be replaced and quickly and Fox will work with whoever is in charge. Well we agree on your first point, but I am still amazed that there are so-called football fans on here who honestly believe that having FIFA take such an extreme action is somehow good. Firstly, are you forgetting how it was that the FFA came into existence? Even with government throwing tens of millions of dollars at it, it was anything but quick and easy. Why do people think it will be quick and easy the next time? Why do people think that such major disruption is a good thing? Why do people suppose that everyone will fall into lock-step with whoever FIFA puts forward to run Australian Football. That seems like a mighty big assumption based on nothing. It is a big deal. I am not sure why the FFA is treating this situation so lightly. All they have to do is have more votes in their congress. Not an unreasonable request. Well, we both know the answer - Lowy was allowed to do whatever he wanted in setting up the FFA (Government asked him to do it, gave him the funds, Lowy wanted carte blanche and got it). Lowy set up a structure that meant the game would never fall into the hands of those pesky wogs again. He, and his son now, achieve this by having all the smaller state federations in their back pocket. He can go to 13 seats at the table and still control things via the 7 smaller state federations (just).Anything higher than that, and Lowy loses control. So we know and understand why, but the problem remains that he does have those 7 votes in his back pocket, and the disgruntled stakeholders only have 3. That's where things currently stand, and Lowy can rightly argue that he is closer to having the numbers to change the constitution than the other 3 members. There are currently 10 votes in the congress. Currently as I understand Vic and NSW want 13 votes, FFA would like to have 12. In order to even get to an expanded congress of 12 or even 13 they need to be able to change the constitution. They need 8 votes to do this. 7/10 is only 70% they need 75% Even if the FFA get what they want it is still very unlikely that FIFA will agree to those low numbers as their congress.
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
RBBAnonymous
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
I can translate this is in Latin - Lowius Hippocratius
|
|
|
|
|
aussie scott21
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI can translate this is in Latin - Lowius Hippocratius If ya can't beat 'em 
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIf I am a Fox executive and I am happy with the existing deal all I will do is reach out for my rubber stamp and continue with the status quo. Yes it's that simple. Do you honestly think Fox would risk not showing the A-league on Fox, they would lose plenty of subscriptions. If they want to fulfill the obligations of the TV deal, they must show the A-League, which, will still be owned by the FFA which still exists as a legal entity and which, most probably, would still have government support. If any clubs have chosen to break their licensing agreements with the FFA, there'd probably be court action. If clubs pull out of the A-League, the FFA will need to find new clubs to meet the 5 games per week obligation - becomes more difficult if we no longer a member of FIFA, but not impossible (it just means that only rank amateurs would be playing in the A-League). And yet you're somehow trying to argue here that FFA is in an advantaged position. If the clubs want to break away then FFA can go to court and take on 10 aleague clubs and 120 of the next biggest clubs. That will be one hell of a day in court. Frank, Steve and Dave going head to head with the 130 biggest football clubs in the country, threatening to replace them with the Sydney Pirates, Melbourne Blues and with the full support of 1% of football fans left that have faith in the FFA. Bring it the fuck on
|
|
|
|
|
bohemia
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAustralian government and our laws maybe on the FFA's side - I'm not a corporate lawyer. But can't FIFA just ban the FFA from the sport so no Socceroos - no World Cup, Asian Cup, Women's World Cup, etc. until FFA fall in line? Would the FFA and the Australian government really want that? It's not like FIFA need Australia in the game like the traditional European and South American powers and China and the US. I agree, FIFA can throw the FFA out, I'm not saying otherwise (although that's a pretty drastic action in terms of where things currently sit). What I have been arguing is that FIFA can do the above, but they can't just take over the FFA - which some have intimated. That being the case, a whole new body needs to be created, new contracts put into place, new sponsorship, new TV deals, new refs' body, etc, etc. A lot has to happen for something new to be created out of nothing, and it's unclear how government would respond, noting that it originally set up the FFA, it recruited Lowy, and the Lowy empire remains a major contributor to both parties. People should not assume that any of this would be straightforward - it most definitely would not. Yes and I have been saying that the FFA will still exist but who have no authority. The FIFA board will come in and just say ok everyone involved with football in Australia has to deal with this new board. The government wont get involved, they don't interfere right now and if they did FIFA will just kick us out and happily walk away. If you think being in the football wilderness for any length of time is in our best interests then fine. Fox will want to deal with this FIFA board because if they don't show the top tier of football in Australia they will lose subscriptions by the truck load. The A-league clubs will be happy because they will get more money, the NPL clubs will be happy because more than likely they will see p & r. Which ever way you want to turn there is no one who will support Gallop, so yes he will be in charge of a national team that cant go to a world cup and he will be in charge of grassroots. Have you thought this out Pipps. So a new entity needs to be created, new contracts are needed, new sponsorship, new TV deal, etc, etc - and where is the seed funding coming from to create the new entity? I keep mentioning government support because the FFA only came into existence because of government funding. FOX will just rubber stamp it. If they don't show football they will lose a lot of subscriptions. Well, in fact, if Foxtel was forced to the negotiation table with a brand new entity, new league, maybe different teams, who knows - I would not count on Foxtel automatically offering the same amount again. I would happily ask FIFA to re-negotiate the TV deal. Would Fox want the same. Hmmmm I don't know. I think the tv deal could have been better myself. Most on the forum think so as well. You reckon FIFA would take a direct interest in how much ten Australian clubs can get from its TV deal? Mate, there are leagues all over the world which don't make a cracker from TV. Do you think any of the existing A-league clubs will follow Gallop under the current TV deal with Fox. You must be joking. The FFA will own the names and that's it. All the CEO's of the existing clubs will walk away and form a new body and deal directly with Fox or another TV company. Meanwhile David Gallop will still have to honor the contract with Fox and find 10 A-league clubs for them to show every week. Back to basics - the clubs want at least $4 mill per annum, last FFA offer was $3.55 mill per annum. Will FIFA step in merely because the two parties are yet to agree an amount, which is currently not all that far apart? No, next to zero chance. Now if by chance something extreme like that did happen, with new governing body, new league, maybe new clubs - I would bet that Foxtel would be negotiating a lesser TV deal, afterall, it's a brand new comp, new risks, major disruption, why would they want to offer the same amount? Seriously wtf. No. Just no. The broadcaster goes with the incumbent clubs. See: English Premier League break away If the clubs break away then FFA cannot meet its contractual obligation to Fox. Fox will tear up the contract and deal with the existing clubs in a new league. They will not take your utterly braindead strategy of dealing with an upstart FFA backed league comprised of new clubs formed with the leftovers from the 130 largest football clubs in the land. FFA will have proven themselves incapable of honouring contracts and won't be dealt with ever again. You are just so far up the arse of the AFL it isn't funny
|
|
|
|
|
miron mercedes
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xUntil the governance changes are agreed AND the management of the A-League changes, it's the FFA which has the TV deal with Foxtel because they currently own and run the league. Some may not like it, but as things currently stand, the club owners have to negotiate with the FFA for a slice of the TV money. Presumably all the refs come under the FFA banner as well. So you'd think that Foxtel would stick firm with the FFA if the club owners tried to walk (in fact, I wonder how easy it is for them to walk given the licensing agreements they have signed). It's not difficult. If the clubs really wanted to they could go directly to FIFA with the NPL clubs and say that the A-league is not following FIFA statutes. In comes FIFA taking control of the A-league, who do you think Fox will have to deal with in order to show games. Yeh, but that can't override contractual agreements already in place back here in Australia. An Australian court would insist on the parties meeting their contractual obligations. The FIFA statutes would mean nothing within the Australian court system (unless the actual licensing agreement has something in there about the FFA abiding by FIFA statutes, which is possible I guess) or unless one or more of the clubs can point to other guarantees made to that effect. Actually no .....if a party can show a contract is unfair a judge may rule it invalid.There may be a case for this here.There may also be grounds for the clubs to apply for breach of contract. Without knowing what the exact terms and conditions are are we can't really know. In many cases the mere threat of years of litigation may be more motivation than what the contract actually says anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
miron mercedes
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 0
|
...that is something that Lowy would surely wish would disappear
|
|
|
|
|
bigpoppa
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
For the FFA to ba apart of FIFA, I would assume ANY contract the FFA either signs or puts forward to be signed, no matter who the other party is, would have all the correct FIFA conditions in place.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm feeling more and more disillusioned each day.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
The HAL is run as a franchise system with the clubs being issues licenses to participate. FFA as the master franchisor controls & owns everything, the intellectual property, the names, the brands, team colors, websites. Everything. If your interested in seeing what options current Franchise owners have, just google how Clive Palmer & Gold Coast untied went when they took on the FFA when they pulled Clive's license. With regard to setting up a rebel league, assuming current owners would be able to get past non-compete clauses in their license agreements (which will be there without a doubt), how many HAL fans will swap to Sydney City FC, Western Sydney Rovers or Melbourne Victorious, each wearing different team colors as FFA owns current strips? Doubt many would, so value of tv deals or sponsorship would be minimal. Also other than the big 3, the other teams are already on their knees financially so where will funds to set up new clubs & league come from? Plus as we have seen in the past with GC, Brisbane and Newcastle, if current owners pull the pin, FFA could just take over the running of the teams themselves, costs would be covered by the Fox TV money and they could then flog them to new owners when they wanted. The average fan doesn't care who the owners are. Personally I believe many of the current issues are caused by the lack of a traditional "football club" organisation in the HAL, but unfortunately, the current system is based on the "Jim's Mowing" business model and Jim (FFA) is the king.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Yeah, I think the clubs need to be careful because going in for a fight now just for the sake of it could end up damaging them even more, financially. Everyone can see that the system needs to change, away from the franchise/FFA controlled league to a more independent league that incorporates secondary divisions and grassroots, but going all out in that fight now for the sake of $500k a year might not be wise. Absolutely the clubs need to agitate for more say/representation in the running of the game and gradually from there we would like to see things like independent league with clubs given more control of their recources and income and the building of the football pyramid but I'm not sure that getting into a fight about it at this time and dragging the game through the mud is the right option.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.1K,
Visits: 0
|
It just goes to show that the current FFA model for a National Competition is all wrong.
|
|
|
|